What do you wish from a BT successor?

[Empyrus]

Heat is easy to keep track as it is, just use a paper-clip on edge of the paper. Since the effects are marked on the heat gauge, it is not like one needs to remember the effects, they can be checked as necessary.

Simple damage to internal structure sounds a bit boring. But i don't really like to-hit penalties. Even simple +1 has major effect on a game where hitting is already a bit hard. Movement penalties are interesting, since they don't cripple combat capability but force one to commit since retreating becomes difficult, and should one get movement penalty, they really need to finish off enemies quickly because dodging fire becomes harder as well.
I'd probably streamline heating so that there'd be movement, pilot damage, ammo explosion chances (with modifications to ammo explosions themselves), and shutdown chances. Overall much shorter heat gauge too.

[Domi1981]

No other game is BT's successor. I would be interesting in another simulationist-skirmish game but i can't see anyone making them, and even then they wouldn't be a replacement for BT. Figure that BT getting official rules makeover is more likely (and that's not probable at all).

As for a universe filled with atrocities and moral dilemmas.... Yawn. BT already has enough of those.

You didn´t understand what I wrote. Anyway: imho Battletech novellas are way too superficial in depicting grief and the struggle of people during wartime (maybe because the authors never had to live in a totalitarian regime). I always feel like reading a Hollywood action movie. Whenever it gets deeper than five inch of water the authors censor themself. I´m looking for the way Lew Kopelew or Alexander Solschenizyn could write. Or how my grandfather depicted what he endured during the war when he was disguised as a German during the third Reich and later had to work with the Russians to save his skin. But games like "This War of Mine" showed clearly that developers can take on an adult approach on gaming and have success.
Sure some people like playing red mechs gainst yellow mechs, counting units, but there are many people I met who want to explore an interesting dystopia by playing and acting in this universe. Shows like the Expanse for example show that good science fiction is possible and fans love to dig deeper. So if I have the chance to watch a bonus feature on some DVD or play a board game campaign that allows me to influence the story I take the board game.

[Empyrus]

BT novels have always been pulpy/campy action stories. Even the Gray Death novels. Hell, maybe especially those, Grayson basically falls in a 'Mech's cockpit and saves a planet. It is not deep. They're about the warriors, not civilians, that's never been BT's shtick, it is in the damn name.

Personally, i don't really care one way or another. It is not like we get much fiction in the first place.

I think you're looking for the stuff you want from wrong place. BT is a game first, with fiction build around supporting the game mostly by portraying major events, not really being there to explore random non-warrior person A's inner struggles in the said world. Whether it should be different... no comment, but i doubt it will ever be different.

[Charistoph]

OK, you got a point there with penetration-based system rather than ablative. But then again, i didn't mention that i would still retain critical hits and sorta build around that, more so than standard BT does. Different weapons would produce different effects, and some components might be easier to damage than others. Thus, there'd be purpose for variety of weapons (say, small lasers would be great at disabling things like sensors just to throw a complex example here). And multiple heavy weapons grant greater chance of penetrating enemy armor per round. There probably should be partially ablative armor still though, no armor plate lasts forever.

Just thinking about it off hand, I would personally keep both an ablative factor with the penetration as that would affect how it would work.  Many of the Armor numbers would have to be reduced to make it work, which sucks on a reformat scale.

I would set up the PPCs, autocannon rounds (besides AP), and Thunderbolt Missiles with a high damage/low penetration factor which is more effective at reducing the armor.  These are the hole punchers that open up the skin to allow everything else to get through more easily.  They would also do horrendous internal damage once penetrating the armor is not a factor.

Lasers would fall under a high penetration/lower damage model who would gain a penetration bonus at closer range, say 1/3 for base and 1/2 for pulse.

Cluster weapons (SRM, LRM, MRM, LB-X) and machine guns would be a low base damage and penetration, but would be hitting multiple times across the model.  This follows the whole "crit-seeker" concept which is trying to take advantage of the holes being opened up by the cannons.

Obviously, I don't have the numbers set up, this is just a quick brush overview.  It would also be coinciding with a simplification of attack and damage to be closer to (but not entirely match) how Warmachine works.  Basically a compromise between CBT and AS.  It's doable, but as has been mentioned, is getting away from what Battletech currently is.  That may not be a bad thing, though, in order to make it more accessible to the current market state who have gotten used to Warmachine and X-Wing.

In any case, my ideas are very rough, and were i ever to playtest them, i'd throw away stuff that simply doesn't work or doesn't make a game interesting. As they are, they're mostly ideas rather than solidified rules. (Ideas are easy anyway.)

Yeah, any idea would have to be tested out to refine it or even test the viability of it.  Just the labor to convert every single canon mech would be tiring, to say nothing of converting Vehicles and BA.  Constructions rules would have to be either scrapped or vastly changed to suit it.

[Domi1981]

BT novels have always been pulpy/campy action stories. Even the Gray Death novels. Hell, maybe especially those, Grayson basically falls in a 'Mech's cockpit and saves a planet. It is not deep. They're about the warriors, not civilians, that's never been BT's shtick, it is in the damn name.

Personally, i don't really care one way or another. It is not like we get much fiction in the first place.

I think you're looking for the stuff you want from wrong place. BT is a game first, with fiction build around supporting the game mostly by portraying major events, not really being there to explore random non-warrior person A's inner struggles in the said world. Whether it should be different... no comment, but i doubt it will ever be different.

Okay, then I write i for the third time: Battletech successor, doesn´t have to mean: Battletech 2.
I started this thread after researching people´s stance towards our beloved (but slowly suffocating) game, by playing endless matches with scifi and fantasy fans, googling forums that discuss "the future" of the game and looking for people opinions on BT in general. Most of them were turned off by how cumbersome an unapproachable the game is, the sole focus on macro level politics which bewilder most people while there are barely characters and their journeys that catch peoples excitement. Another no go for most of them was to build a miniature landscape and play tabletop, instead of playing on a simple board that offers everything without wasting space and time. Campaigns are the way to go for those who want to get bonded with their characters. They love to build them up, and losing them hurts, but this ride on the knifes edge is what creates excitement for them. Do you know the game Jagged ALiance 2? You had to win people over, had to care for your mercs, and how you create teams. At the same time it was not overly complicated and fun. Then you have Battletech, a game that gives people migraine when they want to attain that level of socio economics.
Don´t get me wrong, I don´t want to take Battletech away from you, but I want to discuss how an alternative game could be possible. A game with mechs and no fantasy bullcrap like aliens or light sabers and energy shields. Yet maybe a game that gives people a more accessible universe, that doesn´t solely put out manual after manual with more and more armies and mechs to count. Most people I talked to had the impression that Battletech is a game about accounting.

[Dakkon]

Different strokes for different folks; I feel the Battletech Universe is large enough, and varied enough, to accommodate both the serious and the silly.

Movement penalties are interesting, since they don't cripple combat capability but force one to commit since retreating becomes difficult, and should one get movement penalty, they really need to finish off enemies quickly because dodging fire becomes harder as well.

Good point on movement modifiers (not sure I feel it's still worth keeping, but it certainly does put an interesting tactical twist on having high heat). Definitely agree on the matter of the to-hit modifiers for heat being pretty punishing, on top of all of the other modifiers to-hit.

[Empyrus]

Yeah, any idea would have to be tested out to refine it or even test the viability of it.  Just the labor to convert every single canon mech would be tiring, to say nothing of converting Vehicles and BA.  Constructions rules would have to be either scrapped or vastly changed to suit it.

I'd start with picking only few distinct 'Mechs to test things out. Manual construction with no codified rules. Basically i'd pick some archetypes, and maybe some mixed 'Mechs. The Rifleman, Raven, Atlas, Warhammer, Shadow Hawk would be good options for example.
I figure construction rules can be made after everything else. But even so, i'm actually inclined to just omit them completely. Just officially made units, perhaps unofficial rules for constructing unofficial units. This stems from the fact i don't actually play with custom units ever. I may play around with construction programs but that's all. That said, i would include some method of customizing your units.

Vehicles are a bit problematic because current canon and gameplay don't really agree. Vehicles are supposed to be weaker and worse than 'Mechs but cheaper. In practice, there are good vehicles for their price, and overall vehicles are not actually cheaper than 'Mechs, unless setting up 'Mech production is far more expensive.
I'm inclined to reduce vehicles to several different types (like, "heavy assault tank" could be represented by Marksman M1, Behemoth I/II or Challenger, with no functional difference) and make them mostly filler/cannon fodder. But not certain about this. I would like to make them part of the basic game though, and with roughly 12 units per side, we'd be looking at a a lance/Star/Level II of 'Mechs plus some vehicles and infantry.

Some notes on weapons and stuff:
-I'd reduce range bands to "minimum (missiles only)/optimal/maximum". Not as realistic as larger number of range bands but this would be for simplification for sake of faster and easier gameplay and reducing amount of information on record sheets that should be ideally smaller anyway.
-Missiles would be spendable weapons with limited ammo, a bit like "ordnance" in Star Wars: X-wing Miniatures Game. Promote alternate ammo for them, special tricks, etc. (Would also solve the internal volume problem of missile weapons: no technical schematic for BT ever shows where all the hundreds of missiles are stored in 'Mechs despite BT missiles being relatively small.)
-I'd probably mostly remove "cluster weapons" to reduce die rolling or otherwise modify the system, not sure. Weapon distinctions would stem from other attributes mostly.
-Weapons technology needs to be mapped from Age of War to Dark Age. Move tech around as makes sense (such as MRMs becoming basic weapons rather than 3050s tech).
-OmniMech modularity should be promoted, rather than having selection of stock configurations that work just like normal 'Mech variants.

[Charistoph]

Okay, then I write i for the third time: Battletech successor, doesn´t have to mean: Battletech 2.

Too true.  In many respects, I do think that Dropzone captured a lot of the atmosphere and gameplay level that Battletech arrived at.  The biggest differences being the alien aspect and the dilution of detail to being closer to 40K Epic (to be fair, the creator was a 40K designer at one time).

I started this thread after researching people´s stance towards our beloved (but slowly suffocating) game, by playing endless matches with scifi and fantasy fans, googling forums that discuss "the future" of the game and looking for people opinions on BT in general. Most of them were turned off by how cumbersome an unapproachable the game is, the sole focus on macro level politics which bewilder most people while there are barely characters and their journeys that catch peoples excitement. Another no go for most of them was to build a miniature landscape and play tabletop, instead of playing on a simple board that offers everything without wasting space and time. Campaigns are the way to go for those who want to get bonded with their characters. They love to build them up, and losing them hurts, but this ride on the knifes edge is what creates excitement for them. Do you know the game Jagged ALiance 2? You had to win people over, had to care for your mercs, and how you create teams. At the same time it was not overly complicated and fun. Then you have Battletech, a game that gives people migraine when they want to attain that level of socio economics.
Don´t get me wrong, I don´t want to take Battletech away from you, but I want to discuss how an alternative game could be possible. A game with mechs and no fantasy bullcrap like aliens or light sabers and energy shields. Yet maybe a game that gives people a more accessible universe, that doesn´t solely put out manual after manual with more and more armies and mechs to count. Most people I talked to had the impression that Battletech is a game about accounting.

Yeah, I think you're conflating the universe and game in this paragraph a lot.  Universe-wise, I think Heavy Gear is pretty close to Battletech (humans being invaded by humans with engineered infantry...), but I find the gameplay a little harder to track and less detailed then Battletech.  Dropzone goes the other direction from Heavy Gear by having a rather easier to track gameplay (it IS a 40K derivative, after all), but only shares the smashed future scene and piloted robots with Battletech in the story.

I'm not aware of any other TT game that really comes close to it, otherwise.  I am really not familiar with board games (and I usually find them to be bored games to me) to match up with Battletech.  Classic Battletech is too model dependent to be a good board game, and too many people are too fixed on the map sheets to make it a good TT game.

[Empyrus]

There is no good alternative for map sheets unless someone starts selling premade terrain kits for cheap.
And depending on detail needed, terrain is rather ambiguous. High detail game basically needs maps with clear details.

[Charistoph]

There is no good alternative for map sheets unless someone starts selling premade terrain kits for cheap.
And depending on detail needed, terrain is rather ambiguous. High detail game basically needs maps with clear details.

I've seen rather effective Dropzone terrain that has been easily acquired and set up, and the scale really isn't that much different.  And much like Infinity, you REALLY need a good amount of terrain in Dropzone.  The only real challenges are going to the field maps that BT has traditionally used, but it shouldn't be that hard to get a hold of fitting terrain for that.

[Empyrus]

What kind of scale does Dropzone have? As in, miniature scale, rough dimensions of game area, how many units per side per typical game?

I remember seeing some stuff about the game. Kinda nice looking models but otherwise it didn't seem to have anything that really caught my attention.

[Highball]

OK, valid. So how do you accomplish those things? Dreams are good, but what's your pathway to accomplishing those things that the current products don't already do?

If you want a faster game then add a 30 second sand timer to each box set, and for collectability have each one with a house logo on it and colored for that house. Add $1 to the box set and its done.

I have played my games with sand timers for almost 20 years and they work fantastic.

[Charistoph]

What kind of scale does Dropzone have? As in, miniature scale, rough dimensions of game area, how many units per side per typical game?

The starter sets come with 2-3 dropships, 2-4 Infantry Transports with 2-3 Infantry bases each, and 2 heavy units numbering from 2-3 tanks/walkers each.  UCM usually drops the most on to the field while PHR drops the fewest.  Both Shaltari and PHR have walkers, while the Scourge have... something else, they're pretty weird.  Only PHR includes walkers in the base set, but walkers are considerably tougher than the base tanks are.

Most of the tanks are low profile so they can hide behind walls, and the walkers are pretty tall.  I don't have any at the moment or I would have included them.  A quick google can find one of their games to show the terrain they have access to.

I have the Shaltari set, but haven't painted yet (I am a slow painter).  I've added a comparison shot below.  It includes (from left to right) the Shaltari Infantry Gate (they don't ride transports, but portal in ala Starcraft Protoss), and Infantry base (powered infantry which makes them much taller), the main tank (hover tank with gauss equivalent) and an AA tank on the end.  Don't mind the slightly modified and partially painted Thanatos in the middle, please.

[Empyrus]

Heh, very different vehicles than BT's bulky boxes. I seem to recall the human vehicles in Dropzone being more... well, Battletech-y though. Mmm, probably should read a bit about the game.

That unit amount the starter box sounds about what i think would be good for BT too. Well, at least assuming a faster system... Obviously with turn timers and experience company vs company games don't necessarily take too long in BT but it isn't stuff new players can jump right into.

[Charistoph]

Heh, very different vehicles than BT's bulky boxes. I seem to recall the human vehicles in Dropzone being more... well, Battletech-y though. Mmm, probably should read a bit about the game.

That unit amount the starter box sounds about what i think would be good for BT too. Well, at least assuming a faster system... Obviously with turn timers and experience company vs company games don't necessarily take too long in BT but it isn't stuff new players can jump right into.

Yeah, the UCM follows a bit more classic boxy format, while those pictured above are the high tech alien faction.

The system isn't terribly complex and moves about as quickly as 40K, but with fewer units. 

The starter set's usually in the 500-ish point range, but the target for most of the games I have seen have been about 1500.  There are some pretty big units which can reduce the model count a bit.

[Empyrus]

How quick WH40k is BTW?

[Charistoph]

How quick WH40k is BTW?

When not dealing with special rules to argue about, it actually moves pretty quickly for the number of models it can have.  It's IGOUGO, so one player moves models, then has them shoot, then decides if they can/will Charge in to melee, do melee attacks on both sides, then its the other person's turn.  Most of it can be done in batch rolling since it all revolves around 1D6.  Damage is done by rolling To Hit, rolling To Wound, rolling To Save (if possible).  It's got problems, mostly due to poor writing to get the intent across, but pretty easy.

[abou]

Question: how much is BattleTech's slow pace a problem now vs how much will it be in the future?

I ask that because I wonder if things are turning a corner. We have the advent of Slow TV in Norway where you literally watch people knit and a return to hand tool work for furniture making among hobbyists. Is it possible that gaming may turn back around with the resurgence in board games? Consider how popular D&D is right now -- those sessions can last an awfully long time. Now consider the granularity of BattleTech and the attachment you can have to your unit.

Well, a guy can dream. I do think having tables handy so you aren't flipping through a book and good game knowledge greatly improves the speed of BattleTech.

I will say that I wish there was a way for light and scout 'mechs to be more useful to the game. I have always wanted rules that were more conducive to scouting and information gathering and simply have not been satisfied yet. It may simply be more a matter of making this work in an RPG context rather than a one time setup. That or using larger maps.

[ActionButler]

I guess it depends on how we are defining 'successor'.

I feel like a lot people here would want an expanded set of advanced, more granular rules stacked on top of the rules we have now.

Me? I would rebuild the game from the ground up.  I would remove remove the armor points and replace them with armor ratings.  Weapons would be handled as an overall attack factor against different types of units (similar to Memoir 44) instead of being fired individually.  Damage would be less descending health ar of armor and more your armor has been breached and now you suffer the following effects for the rest of the game.  Significantly fewer to-hit modifiers and tables.  Pilots would play more important roles than just gunnery. Armies would have dedicated lists ofu its to choose from. 

Basically, faster than what we have now, but with the same idea that mechs are extremely hard to wholly destroy.

I've thought about this a lot in order to make traditional Battletech more family game night compatible. 

[ColBosch]

No other game is BT's successor. I would be interesting in another simulationist-skirmish game but i can't see anyone making them, and even then they wouldn't be a replacement for BT. Figure that BT getting official rules makeover is more likely (and that's not probable at all).

As for a universe filled with atrocities and moral dilemmas.... Yawn. BT already has enough of those. How does not describing them in detail change anything? Personally i really don't like the modern trend of gray and black morality, borderline villain heroes, general fetishization of everything being complete shitshow. BT's strength is that it does allow for for variety of things, it is not chained to being dark and edgy and gloomy OR being excessively heroic.

It's not often that we agree completely, but I do agree completely with this.

[victor_shaw]

To bring to light my opinion on the games in general we have to look at the issues IMHO with the game.
Now others might not see these as issues and think that they are what gives Battletech its charm, but to me the background is what does that not the rule set.

Battletech
1. The rule as they stand are no more then a slugfest
2. Mechwarriors are for the most part just meat in a can.
3. The game as designed, focuses on two small a force to give any idea of the scope of the battle.
4. There is way to much crunch to be appealing to most new players
5. The armor/internal system was outdated for its time when the game was made.
6. The game needs at least 3 core books to feel like anything other then a one off slow board-game.
7. The integration of other units besides Battlemech is cumbersome to say the least.

Alpha Strike
1. While the rules make the Mechwarriors more important, they make the Mechs more a pawn on a chess board then anything to be upset about when they are lost.
2. Units besides Battlemech become even more unimportant, as they are relegated to one hit mooks.
3. most if not all the same issues as Battleforce.

Battleforce/Strategic battletech.
1. all units become just pawns to be positioned for the check.
2. The game farther distances the player from the playing pieces to the point of not caring about there loss if it improves their position.
3. On a strategic level the game rarely gives the player any true issues with sacrificing his units if it works for the overall strategy.
4. Overall the game fails at a strategic level due to the one off nature of the battle. (P.S. Interstellar Operations fixes some of these issues but has to be looked at as another game.)

Mechwarrior/A Time of War
1. The game has way to much crunch for most players these days.
2. The system is trying to integrate itself with and old game that has way to many issues to begin with.
3. The character creation system is to blotted for its own good.
Examples: I started a Shatterzone game two weeks ago with players who had never played the game before, after about ten minutes of instruction the players started working on their characters and had then done in another 45 mins. As opposed to when I tried to run ATOW, It took about and hour and a half to explain the character creation, and still took about  2 hours for the to create them using a spreadsheet. This is a major turn-off for the players and when one of them was killed when his Battlemech was taken down the group just asked to switch games. (P.S. this is the shatterzone group)
4. Anything passed this is unimportant, as if you can't get passed Character creation the game needs work.

All this said the games need lots of work and I don't mean just some errata and a oil change.
Most of these games have outlived there era, most of the game that came out at the same time are dead or have change (sometimes for the worse)
while it is a testament to the old-timers and to the appeal of the battletech universe that have keep the game alive. I have see less and less newcomers to the game over the years so if the game doesn't get a makeover and if this trend continues Battletech will not out live this decade IMHO.

[Dakkon]

Long list goes here.

Pretty good overview of the shortcomings of the various Battletech rulesets, I pretty much agree with your assessment. Especially the below quoted section.

Although I wanted to ask you, what system would you take inspiration from or mimic in replacing the existing armor/internal structure system?

3. The character creation system is too blotted for its own good.
Examples: I started a Shatterzone game two weeks ago with players who had never played the game before, after about ten minutes of instruction the players started working on their characters and had then done in another 45 mins. As opposed to when I tried to run ATOW, It took about and hour and a half to explain the character creation, and still took about  2 hours for the to create them using a spreadsheet. This is a major turn-off for the players and when one of them was killed when his Battlemech was taken down the group just asked to switch games. (P.S. this is the shatterzone group)
4. Anything passed this is unimportant, as if you can't get passed Character creation the game needs work.

I've been playing a AToW campaign in my local area for month or two now and the character creation took three to four meetings to finalize and iron out mistakes we made using its system (and this is using an excel program, we probably would've scrapped the campaign without it). We've had no previous experience with the system, but If you need an excel program (it's fan made, of course ) in order to even create characters for a RP game, something is seriously wrong with the ruleset.

[victor_shaw]

Pretty good overview of the shortcomings of the various Battletech rulesets, I pretty much agree with your assessment. Especially the below quoted section.

Although I wanted to ask you, what system would you take inspiration from or mimic in replacing the existing armor/internal structure system?

Do you want just one system or a group of systems?
The issues here is I could give many example of systems that did something better, but we need a new system not a whole bunch of mechanics from other systems combined into one.
Battletech needs to be paired down a quiet a bit. Right now the system is chunky and requires 3 books to work at full effect.
FASA gave us a great system in Renegade Legion but even that is to chunky for this day and age. So I would go with an armor system like lets say heavy gear. This is quick and allows the pilot to effect the out come in multiple ways.

Alpha Strike needs to just be dropped. The above issues is the reason we have this game in the first place, and if battletech was fixed then the need for this game would disappear.

Battleforce/Interstellar Operations needs to become one game if its needs two books to work there is way to much chunk. I hate to say it but during the Beta I was happier with the original rules then what they became. Yes they needed some work but in true battletech style they went from a game that needed a little work to a chunky overblown monstrosity that was Interstellar Operations.

As for AToW I would have to say that the game was fine in 2nd edition. yes it had some powergaming issues, but that could have been fixed with some rule tweeks. AToW shows the same issues that have plagued battletech for awhile now. The need to get more chunky. I would love to see them pick up where the field manuals left off and revitalize 2nd edition with some rule fixes to stop the powercreep. The 4th edition just turns off any players I try to get to play right at character creation. Don't get me wrong I use Character creators for all my games, but this is to speed-up the prossess and to allow me to my NPCs on the fly, not because it is a requirement to just get it done.

I've been playing a AToW campaign in my local area for month or two now and the character creation took three to four meetings to finalize and iron out mistakes we made using its system (and this is using an excel program, we probably would've scrapped the campaign without it). We've had no previous experience with the system, but If you need an excel program (it's fan made, of course ) in order to even create characters for a RP game, something is seriously wrong with the ruleset.

see above. P.S. I have a good spreadsheet from this page, but thanks for the offer.

[Dakkon]

Do you want just one system or a group of systems?

Either or, whatever combination or singular system that you think would be a good replacement for the current armor/internal system. It doesn't have to mesh with the current way the rules work, it just has to be a system that you feel works well in modeling/tracking damage to a unit. If I were to describe generally the ideal; it would maximize depth, but not sacrifice simplicity and speed of play. The right balance or compromise between the two is what's needed (not an easy thing to do though, obviously).

I ask because I'm thinking about making a homebrew ruleset for Classic Battletech (favoring the table top side of things) with the goal of: simplifying, revising and quicken the pace of the game.

Battletech needs to be paired down a quiet a bit. Right now the system is chunky and requires 3 books to work at full effect.

Hell, I just played a game with several people each having one mech (mostly mediums with intro tech and simultaneous shooting/melee phases) and that felt like a bit of a slog.

[AlphaMirage]

Yeah the tricky rules are mostly movement related but fortunately are fringe case typically though I would favor a 5e DnD type system with a static 1 or 2 advantage and disadvantage.  As for scale though I don't know which scale you want to play at and it is difficult to make a game as crunchy as BT work at battalion scale without significant abstraction, lance or demi-company sized battles are good for most eras of the game.  Companies engaging should be either a part of a larger operation (in which case the five minutes that elapse in even the longest games won't really matter) or large skirmishes.

My home group (admittedly very experienced) can get a company on company battle completed in three hours if don't jack around or stack the ranks deep with heavies and assaults (assaults are boring to play as anyhow as it is just a slugging match, heavies can at least be interesting).

Just roll different colored dice for your various weapons (I typically max out around six, which is conveniently the number of colored dice I have), the heat issue can be mitigated by smart design (if you want to play it safe) most of the mechs I play are +4 max and engine and gyro hits should be a problem that hurts.  Initiative is playing card based in our larger battles it makes the game run so much smoother. 

Actually as a tabletop war-game Battletech is a fine design and rather elegant if you get rid of the fringe cases but needs some standardization (7 range bands, 10 weapon types of each energy, missile, and ballistic max with a logical progression in both range and damage) and maybe a boost to a base 2d8 to make speed useful again and allow for a chance at extreme range shots with an average gunner.  Quirks on the sheet for pilot and mech especially if randomly rolled would also allow for a more interesting combatant.

I wouldn't even actually change most of the main construction rules either (engine, armor, gyros, etc... weapons get a full remake to bring them more into balance, energy gets hotter, ballistic gets lighter, missiles are utility), they are well-balanced though again need some paring down of options (One type of Tech, preferably Clan as the Battlemechs remain just as vulnerable but hit harder, in fact that is all I use for newbies) something I hope they actually do with ilClan when they jump forward there is just no reason to keep inferior IS tech around, no offense to the pre-clan people but the march of technology continues even in the distant future of the Inner Sphere.

[Empyrus]

Construction rules well balanced?
I really, really can't see that. Energy weapons are in general so much better. They don't produce nearly enough heat for their other capabilities, and double heat sinks deal with heat more than adequately. And with the Dark Age, we got radical heat sink, fortunately no one has had time to integrate that with 'Mechs armed with mostly Clan energy weapons!
Endo-steel is much better option than ferro-fibrous. Alternative armors are laden with drawbacks that make them mostly questionable things, with some of them being so bad i really wonder why were they added at all (eg anti-penetrative ablation armor).
Armored components managed to make heavy duty gyro (a fine thing in itself) completely pointless due to weight saved.
And there are so many other things...

I don't mind dead-end technologies but they should be still playable (that is, drawbacks should not kill them dead right there), and preferably set in times when they make sense. Such as hypervelocity ACs, if they didn't explode so badly, they'd be still worthless in their current era, but modified and moved to the Succession Wars era to replace Gauss Rifle's capabilities with lower technology, they'd actually have interesting niche and even some use, even though they'd be dropped  once the Gauss tech is recovered.

Clan tech base as standard has several issues, especially on structural side. As it is, there is little reason not to have both endo-steel and ferro-fibrous. They're both so compact, along with other Clan tech compactness, there just is no meaningful choice in not having them, very few fringe cases aside. With armored components and Clan tech, there is no need to have alternative gyros nor alternative engines.
On playable side, Clan tech does increase the speed of the game by having more firepower, but they also add mobility and range, so larger maps are required. IIRC, Star vs Star game really needs 2x2 maps whereas IS lance on lance games work on 2x1 maps. And if you play larger games... I can't really fit even just 2x2 maps on my table, there's room for other stuff.

I don't disagree with the idea of consolidating technologies though. But even if BT's rules were only tweaked and streamline, i really think construction rules and various units should be touched and tweaked, both for balancing and for adjusting tech tables for eras.


As for game sizes, i would prefer 12 vs 12 (or 12 vs 10 or 10 vs 10, depending on factions involved) because 4 vs 4 games don't really allow tactical sub-units. Flanking with four light 'Mechs is a bit different than trying a flanking maneuver with just one light 'Mech. Any larger game is out of question though, using standard (or even slightly pruned) BT rules.
A lance of 'Mechs works in combined arms match, an asymmetric match, or a match that is about recon/pursuit lances skirmishing, but for anything else, it is a bit silly. I regard a company the minimum combat strength in practice.

[Red Pins]

Since mech games and board games seem to get a revival I wonder what you people would want from a new board game (not tabletop).

I would love to keep hexfields for orientation and the slowly dismembering of mechs. Yet I would love to see a game that is more campaign and story driven, streamlined in regards to rules and that it would go back to the roots of Battletech lore were mechs were a convenience not a mass product.
I would like to get a war game that includes a faster gameplay than BT but not as abstract as AS. Inclusion of Infantry and tanks.
Scoutmechs should be scouts, not an excuse for missing Credits or Battlevalue points. ANd pilots need to have a bigger role than just being the meat inside the cockpit.

What would you guys like?

Hmm.  Ok, from the beginning;
-Construction rules are a must.  I think its a big deal.
-Hex maps are ok, but tabletop miniature rules need to be included.
-Fluff needs to start fresh - start with Primitive tech, and make them the only published ones at first.  And this is vital; consistency, consistency, consistency.
-Assume declarations, torso twists, tie multiple single weapons to single rolls, etc.  Assume if you have to check piloting, you're falling or whatever already.
-Limit crits for lights (Isn't that already an optional rule?) so that Lights are more Scouts than real fighting units, at least until later tech comes out to give them more construction options.
-Make conventional units more effective and for God's sakes, anti-vehicle or -Mech infantry has been a thing since WWII - deal with it.

I'm not sure about the comment about the pilots in the cockpits, but that twigs another must-have;

-An Alpha Strike-style system for Aerospace, and a PERMANENT AS system.  I'm ok with no published construction rules for any AS unit, from fighters to WarShips, as long as it's consistent and NEVER PUBLISHED so the fix can be made afterward without announcing it.

[Dakkon]

A proper morale system would be nice too. I'm thinking of something like Dirtside II; it could add an interesting dynamic element to a game that rewards players who are adaptable. One problem I see with it though is it slowing down the game and cluttering the board with morale markers.

[Empyrus]

I think you mean "morale". Moral system would be something like alignment from Dungeons and Dragons... Sometimes small differences in words matter  :thumbsup:

Personally i don't think morale systems really fit a tabletop game unless the game is light enough that adding a morale system doesn't bog it down.
BT is already crunchy as mentioned, and any additional rules tend to bog it down even more.

I would, however, promote a victory point system or something like that for scoring games, so that winning (say, due to time limit) might hinge on how many of your units made it out alive, thus promoting retreating rather than fighting to death. This might lead players to retreating badly damaged units from the battlefield, such as an infantry unit that has lost half of its members. Thus effectively creating a morale system of sorts, but avoiding bogging down the game by additional rules.

[Dakkon]

I think you mean "morale".

Woops, that is indeed what I meant.

Personally i don't think morale systems really fit a tabletop game unless the game is light enough that adding a morale system doesn't bog it down.
BT is already crunchy as mentioned, and any additional rules tend to bog it down even more.

I would, however, promote a victory point system or something like that for scoring games, so that winning (say, due to time limit) might hinge on how many of your units made it out alive, thus promoting retreating rather than fighting to death. This might lead players to retreating badly damaged units from the battlefield, such as an infantry unit that has lost half of its members. Thus effectively creating a morale system of sorts, but avoiding bogging down the game by additional rules.

Yeah, adding a proper morale system would likely make the game more cumbersome, but I definitely prefer wargames that simulate (somewhat) the psychological nature of conflicts instead of them being more gamey. In the latter case, every action can be calculated into its pros & cons and actions can be taken without consideration for how crazy it would be in actuality. Mechs' charging each other is a big one, Let alone infantry charging mechs! (I have very few words to describe how utterly insane that would be) Although, I can certainly appreciate Blake's Blessed zealots for having less qualms about doing such things.

I'm not much for playing tournaments, so that might explain my preferences. Obviously from a game design perspective, the smart thing to do would be to make a morale system optional.